Originally Posted by anotherlimey

But then you're not in danger until the guy pulls the gun, by which time you're f***** already.

Originally Posted by Boiler

which is why you shoot first...

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

But the other guy has already pulled his gun, which made you pull yours, so he'll have the first opputunity to shoot first.

My point is, for you to feel sufficiently threatened the situation would require the attacker to have the upperhand already.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

I love this quote:

"Under a life threatening situation, you have to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious condition. It defies common sense,"

That's right because staying and shooting it out is going to be some much safer.

Originally Posted by candy wy.

they don't have to pull a gun for you to feel threatened

http://www.oksenate.gov/news/Nationa...m20041031.html

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

But the other guy has already pulled his gun, which made you pull yours, so he'll have the first opputunity to shoot first.

My point is, for you to feel sufficiently threatened the situation would require the attacker to have the upperhand already.

Originally Posted by Franklin

... and as a matter of law your legal analysis is wrong. There is no requirement in law that the attacker has to have the upperhand already. No such requirement.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

That's an anti-burglar law, which I would fully support. Just as I would support a law which allowed you to shoot someone who tried to get into your car at a set of traffic lights.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

I'm not really talking about that, 'upperhand' is just a phrase I would use when talking about what constitutes a threat. The trouble is the law is too vague on what constitutes a threat, it could be someone calling you names from the other side of the road if you're that sensitive, or it could be someone pointing a gun in your face from three feet away.

Originally Posted by Franklin

No, you are wrong again. The law is very specific on that point. The term of art is "reasonable" ... what a reasonable person would think in like or similar circumstances. The law is quite specific. Wrong again.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

But it's not defined so surely what one person thinks is reasonable is not reasonable in another person's view.

Originally Posted by Franklin

Wrong again, the reasonable person is just that ... not your view, not the view of the defendant or the plaintiff, but the view of a hypothetical person who is a reasonable person place in like or similar circumstances, e.g., would a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant believe his/her life is threatened. The reasonable person is a made up legal person. So you are wrong again. The attributes of the reasonable person is fact dependent, and it is the fact finder who decides what those attributes are, not you or the defendant or the plaintiff, but the fact finder.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

Give me one situation where you'll feel threatened enough to pull a gun where the other person won't have the upperhand already.

Originally Posted by Franklin

Dead easy mate. There once was a man who pulled out a gun and shot a man that just dropped into his place. That man was a Vicar, the gun was in a desk drawer. The Vicar pulled out the gun and shot a man who had just fallen through the roof of "his" church hall. The Chicago cops said it was a "good shoot" or words like that. I thought at the time it was not a good shoot, the man that had fallen onto the floor was probably not in a condition to threaten the life of the Vicar or those near the Vicar (but I was thinking like a Brit with no actual knowledge of the rule of law). The matter did not even go to trial.

If someone illegally enters you house in the dead of night and smashes something (perhaps by knocking something over in the dark because the house and its layout was unfamiliar to the someone who illegally entered your house in the dead of night). You could creep downstairs holding a gun and put the light on and shoot the man who illegally entered your house in the dead of night so long as you had a reasonable belief that you or a member of your family was threatened by the man who illegally entered your house in the dead of night. You are consistently wrong on this matter of law.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

OK, OK you've lost me. So who makes the decision if it's not written in law what is reasonable? Someone would surely have to? No?

BTW: You have quite a condescending attitude, this is a light hearted discussion.